Another lead to find memory eating routine: see my graph: http://rav3n.dtdns.net:9332/static/graphs.html?DayFrom about 3PM my miner stuck and send invalid works. In same time memory usage was growing more and more and not get down when I restart miner and bad to mining.Maybe there is something wrong on stratum/miner connections like it was in p2p connections?My node eats now 420MB and still slowly rising.After restart w/o shares after it re-download share chain it is about 100MB less.

To be honest even this "something is broken" issue is very cyclical ...

That said:

- memory consumption seems to happen less when using stratum (I've been using it for two days now and memory is stable around 400 Mb)- upload traffic and "peers sent a transaction already known" should be addressed, if possible.

I now agree w/ people that something is wrong, but I don't think it's the cyclical nature of the luck, it's the gradual downturn...

stratum is much slower than longpolling, when not mining to localhost

Stratum is not inherently slower than longpolling. In a proper implementation the notification times between long polling and between Stratum are identical (or faster on Stratum since the remote server does less work and requires less burst bandwidth to forward them).

Pool is dying now.. Lost 1/4 of the hashrate. Perhaps it'll come back if there's a good day. Although that would take a 4-7 block streak to bring luck just up to 100%PPS levels for 90 days.

I think it's strange that bad luck streaks at non-PPS pools freak miners out less than bad luck at p2Pool - a pool where a pool op cannot maliciously cause bad luck (lookin' at you, Bitclockers 2011 - early 2012).

I was under the understanding that hashrate has nothing to do with luck.Successfully finding coins fluctuates and could be said to vary based on luck but hashrate is constant for a given hardware barring bugs.

Pool is dying now.. Lost 1/4 of the hashrate. Perhaps it'll come back if there's a good day. Although that would take a 4-7 block streak to bring luck just up to 100%PPS levels for 90 days.

I think it's strange that bad luck streaks at non-PPS pools freak miners out less than bad luck at p2Pool - a pool where a pool op cannot maliciously cause bad luck (lookin' at you, Bitclockers 2011 - early 2012).

I was under the understanding that hashrate has nothing to do with luck.Successfully finding coins fluctuates and could be said to vary based on luck but hashrate is constant for a given hardware barring bugs.

He is saying that because of the luck, miners are leaving the pool, not that the luck is lowering the hash rate.

I think its also likely that GPU miners are going offline in general and ASIC miners are not pointing at p2pool because of the initial reports of problems with stratum.

Pool is dying now.. Lost 1/4 of the hashrate. Perhaps it'll come back if there's a good day. Although that would take a 4-7 block streak to bring luck just up to 100%PPS levels for 90 days.

I think it's strange that bad luck streaks at non-PPS pools freak miners out less than bad luck at p2Pool - a pool where a pool op cannot maliciously cause bad luck (lookin' at you, Bitclockers 2011 - early 2012).

I was under the understanding that hashrate has nothing to do with luck.Successfully finding coins fluctuates and could be said to vary based on luck but hashrate is constant for a given hardware barring bugs.

He is saying that because of the luck, miners are leaving the pool, not that the luck is lowering the hash rate.

I think its also likely that GPU miners are going offline in general and ASIC miners are not pointing at p2pool because of the initial reports of problems with stratum.

Thanks, I misunderstood.I mixed up this thread and another I have open about a recently reported bug with tanking hashrates that happens on certain miner configurations (for all pools)

Just finished a multivariate Augemented Dickey Fuller test on the p2Pool data shares per round data since Novemeber last year, to find if a trend has actually occurred.

p value for trend occurring: 0.96p value for drift occurring: 0.99p value for no trend or drift in data: 0.019

So (and check this out, kano ) there has been no trend in the data since Novemeber last year.

Why does it look like there has been some kind of cyclical trend? This is probably due to the method used to illustrate "luck". Any interpretation is likely to vary from actuality in some way, and I recommend you don't use luck charts in general for any important decision about mining.